Can a defendant be punished for kidnapping for the purpose of robbery?

The court rejected the defendant's claim that section 654 barred punishment for both kidnapping for the purpose of robbery and robbery. (People v. Porter, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at pp. 37-38) The court stated it was reasonable to infer that the defendant initially planned only to rob the victim, but thereafter came up with the idea to kidnap the victim to his bank to withdraw money. (Id. at p. 38.) "In this case the record suggests that appellant was convicted of the robbery of the victim's wallet and of kidnapping for the purpose of a different robbery involving the compelled withdrawal of funds from an automated teller, which was unsuccessful. This is not, therefore, a case of punishing appellant for kidnapping for the purpose of robbery and for committing 'that very robbery.' [Citation.] Nor is this a case of multiple punishment for taking several items during the course of a robbery. [Citation.] What began as an ordinary robbery turned into something new and qualitatively very different. No longer satisfied with simply taking the contents of the victim's wallet, appellant decided to forcibly compel the victim to drive numerous city blocks to a bank where, only with the victim's compelled assistance, could appellant achieve a greater reward. The trial court could reasonably treat this as a new and independent criminal objective, not merely incidental to the original objective and not a continuation of an indivisible course of conduct. In the unusual circumstances of this case, appellant could be punished both for the robbery he committed and the kidnapping for the purpose of a distinctly different type of robbery." (Id. at pp 38-39.)